BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanyam, B.A.B.L., President.

Smt.U.Sunita, M.A., Lady Member

                                 Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.L.L.B., P.G.D.C.P.L.,

                                                                                                  Male Member.

Wednesday,  the 24 ^th day of September, 2008

CC.NO.14/2008

Between:

Sree Vidya Model High School,

Sangareddy, rep.by its Secretary/Correspondent

Kum.K.Deepika D/o K.Raghunandan,

Aged 26 years, R/o H.No.5-1-2/2/F1,

Shanthinagar, Sangareddy.

                                                                                      … Complainant.

AND

1.     The Superintendent of Post Office,

Head Office, Medak at Sangareddy,

Medak District.

2.     The District Educational Officer,

Medak at Sangareddy.

                                                                                 … Opposite Parties

O R D E R

(Per Smt.U.Sunita, Lady Member)

          This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments:

1.                    The complainants case in brief is that the complainant is running a school in the name and style of Sree Vidya Model High School , Sangareddy in the year, 2001 from 1^st standard to 10^th class in English medium. There are about 300 students and 19 staff members are in the institution. In the year 2001 the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 for reorganization of the

-2-

school and he directed the complainant to get NSC bonds worth Rs.50,000/-. Then the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and obtained NSC bond worth Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- totaling to an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 06.08.2001 and 31.10.2001 respectively. The complainant further stated that the said NSC bonds were issued  on the name of  K. Radhika  who is the then secretary/correspondent of sri vidya model high school, Sangareddy. And there after the sri vidya educational society by passing a resolution appointed to Deepika as secretary/correspondent of sri vidya model high school, Sangareddy

2.                After producing the N.S.C bonds the school is recognized by the opposite party No.2. The N.S.C bonds maturity period is shown on 06.8.2008 and 31.10.2007 with an amount of Rs.87,260/-. After maturity period the said bonds the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and took permission to with draw the said N.S.C bonds maturity amount. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 gave an application for obtaining maturity amount of the N.S.C bonds of Rs.87,260/- but the opposite party No.1 refused to give maturity amount and stated that he will be pay the original amount of Rs.50,000/- only. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 several times to give application for issuing the maturity amount, but the opposite party No.1 neither receive the application of the complainant nor paid the maturity amount to the complainant till now. The opposite party No.1 failed to pay the said maturity amount inspite of her efforts and she was no alternative except to file this complaint to request to direct the opposite party No.1 to pay N.S.C bonds maturity amount of Rs.87,260/- with interest 12% from the date of maturity till the date of realization with costs and also compensation of Rs.50,000/-

3.                The opposite party filed counter stating that the complainant purchased 6 years NSC VIII issue certificate for Rs.25,000/- on 06.8.2001 and Rs.25,000/- on 31.10.2001 from  Post Master, Sangareddy, Head Post Office. The said NSC were purchased for reorganization of the school which shows the

-3-

amount was deposited by the complainant as Endowment fund. The certificate was purchased by the complainant in contravention of rule. The certificate were purchased for institution purpose but not in an individual capacity and it is further stated the complainant approached the Post Master Sangareddey with NSC along with letter No.11546/B2/2007 dated 28.11.2007. The Post Master, Sangareddy informed that the above said NSCs where issued in contravention of provisions of Rule 4 of NSCs IVth issue Rules 1970, V th  issue Rule 1973 and VI th and VII th Rule 1981 and asked to take payment of principal amount only.  As per contrivance of the rules the complainant is not entitle to receive the maturity amount of Rs.87,260/- with interest @ 12% p.a. and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. The complainant is entitled only principle amount.  

4.                It is further stated that  the certificate were issued to the correspondent Sri Vidya Educational Society and DEO as joint “B” and the complainant signed in the capacity of Secretary of the institution and both the certificates were pledged to DEO Sangareddy. The letter dated 12.4.2002 shows that the amount which is invested by the complainant is an Endowment Fund for the reorganization of the institution/school.

5.                It is further stated that Under Section 11 of the Government saving certificate Act 1959 no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against any officer of the Government or any prescribed authority in respect of any thing which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act.  So this opposite party acted in good faith and in deciding the case under Rule 4 of 6 year NSC VIII issue of Rule. In view of legal position the complaint is not maintainable. Hence the complaint may be dismissed against the opposite party No.1.

6.                The opposite party No.2 filed separate counter admitted that the complainant Kum.K.Deepika D/o K.Raghunandan Rao, has started an English Medium school from Class I to X by the name and style of Sri Vidya Model

-4-

High School, Sangareddy and she has applied for recognition for school as per rules  envisaged G.O.Ms.No.Edn.(PS.2) Department, dt.1.1.1994 during the year, 2001. As per rule 5 of the said rules the Educational Agency

desires of opening a new school or upgrading existing school have to deposit in scheduled bank endowment fund of Rs.50,000/- for secondary schools and further stated that the government G.O.Ms.No.41, dt.11.5.2006 issued instructions for depositing the endowment fund through by purchasing National Saving certificate worth of Rs.50,000/- in the name of the Correspondent and the DEO jointly that amount has to be deposited for 6 years and there after it can be utilized after obtaining prior permission from the competent authority for the purchase of necessary furniture and material etc required for the school. In view of the above rule position the Educational Society has purchased the NSC bonds. After the maturity the management approached the DEO with drawal of the endowment fund and maturity of NSC to utilize the same for the developmental activities of the school . The opposite party No.2 permission was accorded to utilize the interest accrued on the NSC and to deposit principle amount of Rs.50,000/- on 28.11.2007.

7.        It is further stated that the complainant reported to the opposite party No.2 the postal authorities  have not paid any interest for  NSC purchased as endowment fund in the name of correspondent DEO for the said school.  It is stated that the issue of payment of interest on NSC purchased for the endowment fund is an official transaction based on the rules issued in G.O. Ms No. Edn.Dt. 1-1-1994 which will not attract the provision of consumer forum act since the correspondent can not be termed as consumer with reference to purchase of NSC for the purpose official use. Hence the Hon’ble forum may be dispose of the case of approaching the appropriate court/judicial authority.

Heard both sides

8.                Both parties filed their affidavits. Ex A1 to A8 are marked on behalf of the complainant and written arguments also filed. Opposite party No. 1 filed

-5-

documents but they are marked. The point for that arises for consideration is whether the complainant proved the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

9.                     The contention of complainant is that the opposite party No.1 had issue NSC 6 year VIII issue certificates with denomination Rs. 10,000/- + 10,000/- + 10,000/- +10,000/- +5,000/-+5,000/- totaling to Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the complainant. A perusal of the said NSC certificate clearly shows that the complainant had purchased the said certificates for the value consideration and where in it clearly shows the maturity value and the date of maturity. After expiry of the maturity date the complainant approached to the opposite party No.1 for payment of the maturity amount. But the opposite party No.1 refused to give maturity amount and asked to take original amount of Rs. 50,000/- only. Hence the complainant approached this forum by filing this complaint.

10.                  The complainant usual went to opposite party  No.1 post office and purchased the certificates in normal course which requires to satisfy the rules for recognisation of her school. And the said certificates there are any rules or G.O.’s have to be looked in to either the opposite party or the complainant. If any restrictions in issuance of the said certificates the complainant is not supposed to sold the said certificates in the initial stage by the opposite party No.1 and he could have refused to sell them. The irregular issue of the said certificates or otherwise if any is purely to the matter of the opposite party No.1and the complainant is nothing to do with instructions or the rules.

11.                   Further, once the said certificates issued by the opposite party No.1 is bound to abide by the terms and conditions of the 6 years NSC VIII issue certificates. For the mistakes or oversight or irregularities committed by the opposite party No.1 the complainant should not be penalized or he could be put in loss. It is a clear cut case that due to the total negligence and careless of

-6-

the opposite party  No.1 against the rules the said certificates were issued. And for that the complainant could not be a scape goat. It is absurd and strange argument on the part of the opposite party No.1 by refusing to pay the maturity value could be paid that it self shows not only the deficiency of service but also total negligence and irregularity of the opposite party No.1. And Ex A1 to A6 are NSC bonds shows that the maturity value column was strucked out. But it is clearly shows what is the maturity amount. And the complainant filed a citation of Hon’ble A.P.S.C.D.R.C, Hyderabad in the case of Superindent of Post offices, Sangareddy division, Medak district  Vs Abhudaya Vidayalayam FA No. 651/2005 against CD No. 78/2004 District Forum, Medak at Sangareddy is confirmed reducing interest and compensation is set aside. As per citation union territory consumer disputes redressal commission, Chandigrah in the case of Nova Industries Vs General Post Office and another reported in II (2004) CPJ 306. NSC irregular issue certificates irregularity not detected for a long period of maturity deficiency in service proved opposite party liable to pay the maturity value with interest. By going through the both side contentions that the complainant by all means proved gross negligence and also deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 as such the point is answered in favour of the complainant.

  12.              In the result , the complainant is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay to the complainant Rs.87, 260/- with interest 6% p.a. respective dates 06.08.2001 for Rs.25,000/- and 31.10.2001 for Rs. 25,000/- of maturity  NSC bonds till the date of realization and also pay cost Rs.2,000/-. No compensation is awarded. The CC against the opposite party No.2 is dismissed as a formal party.

                   Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this the 24^th day of September, 2008

    Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                                    Sd/-          

PRESIDENT                LADY MEMBER                    MALE MEMBER   

-7-

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the Complainant:-                                   For the opposite parties:-

         -NIL-                                                                              -NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Complainant:-                                            For the Opposite Parties:-

Ex.A1/dt.—06.08.2001 Original                                       -NIL-

                   NSC bond Worth Rs.10,000/-            

Ex.A2/dt-06.08.2001 Original

                 NSC bond Worth RS. 10,000/-

Ex.A3/dt-31.10.2001 Original

                 NSC bond Worth RS. 10,000/-

Ex.A4/dt-31.10.2001 Original

                 NSC bond Worth RS. 10,000/-

Ex.A5/dt-06.08.2001 Original

                 NSC bond Worth RS. 5,000/-

Ex.A6/dt- 31.10.2001 Original

                 NSC bond Worth RS. 5,000/-

Ex.A7/dt- 28.11.2001 Copy of

                   Proceedings of D.E.O,

                   Sangareddy.

Ex.A8-  Copy of Resolution.                                                      Sd/-                                               

  PRESIDENT

Copy to:

1)     The Complainant

2)     The Opposite parties

3)     Spare copy                     Copy delivered to the Complainant/

Opp. Parties On _________

                                                                   Dis.No.          /2008, dt: